This study explores Theophrastus’ uses of two Aristotelian key concepts, energeia and entelekheia. Texts from the De causis plantarum come first into discussion. There, Theophrastus gives a kinetic...

Simplicius reports that Xenocrates and Andronicus reproached Aristotle for positing an excessive number of categories, which can conveniently be reduced to two: τὰ καθ᾽αὑτά and τὰ πρός τι. Simplicius, followed by several modern commentators, interprets this move as being equivalent to a division into substance and accidents. I aim to show that, as far as Xenocrates is concerned, this interpretation is untenable and that the substance-accidents contrast cannot be equivalent to Xenocrates’ per se-relative one. Rather, Xenocrates aimed to stress the (...) primacy of Plato’s binary distinction of beings, as presented at Sophist 255c13–4, over Aristotle’s list of the categories. (shrink)

Résumé — En Enn., VI, 3 [44], 5, Plotin fait usage de doctrines péripatéticiennes concernant la substance, l’inhérence et la prédication. Ces doctrines correspondent de manière frappante à l’interprétation anti-extensionaliste de la substance physique développée par Alexandre d’Aphrodise contre les thèses des commentateurs plus anciens . Le parallèle entre Plotin et Alexandre ne doit cependant pas conduire à penser que Plotin se borne à suivre les thèses du commentateur, et que leurs doctrines soient donc identiques. Plotin vise plutôt à transposer (...) les principes de l’hylémorphisme d’Alexandre dans un contexte philosophique différent, fondé sur des prémisses métaphysiques qui portent sur la causalité des substances intelligibles. Comme Plotin le montre en VI, 3 [44], la forme hylémorphique n’est en effet pas substance : elle s’identifie à un amas de qualités accidentelles qui dépendent d’une essence véritable et extra-physique, le logos. On parvient à des conclusions analogues si l’on aborde la discussion de la causalité démiurgique chez Alexandre et Plotin. Les deux auteurs adressent des critiques approfondies au modèle artisanal de la causalité . Il n’est pas invraisemblable que les thèses d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aient joué un rôle dans la genèse de la doctrine plotinienne de la causalité. Il faut cependant remarquer, encore une fois, que le cadre conceptuel dans lequel s’inscrivent les critiques de la causalité démiurgique chez Alexandre et chez Plotin est très différent. Pour Alexandre, la causalité démiurgique est rejetée en faveur d’une doctrine cosmologique de la finalité, qui rattache les récurrences naturelles aux mouvements cycliques des astres. Pour Plotin, en revanche, l’ordre naturel s’explique par l’action de principes extra-physiques et sa critique de la causalité démiurgique ne se comprend qu’à l’intérieur de la doctrine de la causalité des êtres intelligibles.Hylémorphisme et causalité des intelligibles.— In Enn., VI, 3 [44], 5 Plotinus outlines some doctrines regarding substance, inherence and predication. Such doctrines are similar to the anti-extensionalist reading of Aristotle’s physical substance that was developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias against previous Aristotelian commentators . The parallel between Plotinus and Alexander is striking : it can safely be inferred that Plotinus’ discussion is based on that of the commentator. This, however, should not lead to assume that Plotinus simply follows Alexander, so that their theories of physical substance are identical. Instead, Plotinus aims to transpose the philosophical principles of Alexander’s Peripatetic hylomorphism into a different doctrinal framework, where metaphysical premises involving the intelligible substances and their causality play a prominent role. As Plotinus shows in VI, 3 [44], the hylomorphic form is not a substance, but a bundle of accidental properties depending on an extra-physical substantial principle, i.e. the logos. The analysis of Alexander’s and Plotinus’ discussions of demiurgic causality lead to the same conclusions. Both philosophers criticize the demiurgic scheme of causality . It can reasonably be assumed that Alexander of Aphrodisias’ treatment played a role in the genesis of Plotinus’ view of causality. However, it is worth noting that the criticism of demiurgic causality has a quite different position within the systems of the two philosophers. Alexander rejects the presence of a demiurgic cause in favour of a cosmological conception of finalism, where natural recurrences are regarded as depending on the cyclical motions of the stars. According to Plotinus, instead, the order of nature is completely caused by extra-physical principles ; his criticism of demiurgic causality points to his doctrine of intelligible causes. (shrink)

This paper focuses on Galen’s views about the formal cause against the wider background of his account of causation. In his works on the pulse, Galen provides an in-depth discussion of issues such as the theory of causes and the problem of definition. While Galen is inclined to incorporate Peripatetic doctrines and vocabulary, he neglects Aristotle’s formal cause both in his account of causes and in that of definition. Further parallels outside the corpus on the pulse confirm Galen’s reserved attitude (...) towards the (Peripatetic) formal cause. In his work That the Faculties of the Soul Follow the Mixtures of the Body, however, Galen refers favourably to the Peripatetic theory of hylomorphic form. More precisely, Galen equates the Peripatetic en-mattered form with the mixture of homoeomerous bodies (the ratio or proportion of the elementary qualities in them). Here I will attempt to provide an explanation of Galen’s mixed attitude towards the formal cause and I will argue that his general position is consistent after all. In addition to this, I will try to set Galen’s position against the background of the Peripatetic debates on the status of form. (shrink)